BFN: Jordan Hotels Blitz Was An Inside Job

[Carolab]

http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/AmmanInsideJob.htm

Cross posting from another thread.

[bullimiami]

1. expected. from the very first I was sceptically.

the whole thing smells funny from the loud proclamations of al qaida, to the pro-gov demonstrations, to the 'capture' of the woman etc...

this sounds more plausible to me.

[gmaki]

2. This is interesting....

I am not supporting nor refuting the theory that this was an inside job, but this thread inspired me to do a little reading up on these bombings.

I ran into this little snippet and found it pretty interesting in the context of the thread.

from: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/13/D8DS0JQO6.html

"Residents of Iraq's Anbar province said al-Rishawi comes from a clan living mostly in Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold about 70 miles west of Baghdad.

Ironically, the clan, known variously as the Burishas and the Rishawis, is known for its good ties with the Americans. Its members include Iraq's defense minister, Saadoun al-Dulaimi, who visited Jordan on Sunday.

Al-Dulaimi offered Jordan his government's support in the bombing probe and warned that unchecked violence in Iraq will spread terrorism across the region."

[Carolab]

3. Why would Al-Qaeda tip the authorities off?

"Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, 35, made her statement hours after being arrested by authorities tipped off by an al-Qaida in Iraq claim that a husband-and-wife team participated in Wednesday's bombings at three U.S.-based hotels."

That makes no sense.

[Little Star]

4. Ah-Hah This makes sense!

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Igel]

5. You presuppose omniscience.

If you believed that all four bombers had died, and you wanted to show that (1) women were bravely fighting where men were not and (2) wanted to show that your reach extended beyond the borders-in-sand dividing Jordan from Iraq, it makes sense to say who the bombers were in this case.

Neither seems implausible. Both seem less implausible than assuming that the Jordanian or US government wanted to off a wedding party in Amman (with the implicit 'to me' that such judgments usually imply).

Things don't always make sense given hindsight or our level of knowledge. They more frequently make sense given a different of facts or presuppositions.

[Carolab]

6. That's not sensible. If they tipped off authorities and it WAS Al-Qaeda

they'd be leading authorities to question someone who could give out vital information about their operations!

They wouldn't jeopardize themselves like that.

The usual M.O. of Al-Qaeda is to "take credit" when they have perpetrated the act. It is NOT to help authorities capture one of "their own".

Therefore, it is either a lie that Al-Qaeda did this, or it is a lie that Al-Qaeda tipped off the authorities.

Think about it.

[Igel]

7. Neither need be true,

if we don't assume that everything's said from AQ's POV, and that AQ is fallible.

The tip came after the bombing. One naturally assumes all the bombers were dead, at which point the information provided is vainglorious and less useful for investigators. Early reports were that all the bombers were dead; but also that all the Israelis were evacuated, and there was a bomb in the ceiling.

If we assume that AQ is omniscient--and correct in knowing that all the bombers died--then they were insanely stupid for giving away information that one of their bombers had survived. That would cast doubt on the claim. I don't believe AQ is, as a rule, insanely stupid. Therefore, either AQ didn't do the bombing, or didn't tip off the authorities. But that's assuming omniscience.

Let's see if the opposite assumption provides a different possible outcome. Let's assume that AQ is not omniscient; then it's possible for them to make the assumption that the bombers were dead, even if it's false. Then they could claim the act without being insanely stupid--just in error, maybe slightly over confident--and inadvertently provide information leading to the capture of one of their bombers. In which case it is a mistake based on imperfect knowledge.

So on the one hand, we have somebody making a mistake based on early reports. On the other hand we have an unknown terrorist group lying saying they're AQ and giving away one of their own, or authorities lying about the claimed tip and how they found the woman.

I'm open to the terrorists' being fallible.

[Carolab]

8. Key flaw in your argument:

"The tip came after the bombing. One naturally assumes all the bombers were dead..."

Not true. The tip was telling the authorities about where to find this woman whose suicide mission had failed and who she was. They knew she had failed and they knew she had fled. They knew she was NOT dead. If the tipsters were truly AQ and if the woman truly was affiliated, they would never have given her up. Therefore, the tip came from somewhere NOT AQ and/or the authorities are lying and they are trying to make it seem that this is AQ. They could then later claim they got some kind of good " AQ intel" from this woman--which may or may not be true, since her husband was previously associated with AQ.